CHAIRPERSON: It is now the 21st of August. The Committee remains unchanged, as do the Leader of Evidence and the legal representative of the applicants. The matter set down for hearing today has been referred to, in the bundle of papers given to us, as: The Killing Of The Botshabelo Police. I understand however, from the applicants' counsel, that there is no application before us in respect of the killing of the police. That the application before us is an application for amnesty in respect of the Robbery At The Botshabelo Pep Stores.
I don't know how this mistake came about but obviously it was as a result of this that the widows of the three policemen who were subsequently killed were given notice that the application would heard by us and that they were victims.
We adjourned the matter yesterday because we were informed that they had been told the matter would be heard today and we felt it wrong to proceed in their absence. They are not here today. The representatives of the TRC have gone to Botshabelo to find them and have been able to make contact with one of them only, who was apparently at her place of work near the police station in Botshabelo. It has been explained to her that there is no application pending in respect of the shooting of the policemen and she is accordingly, as I understand it, going back to her work and the other two people will not be present. It therefore seems that we can proceed with the hearing.
I would like it to be placed on record that I am correct in what I have said about the fact that the applicants, two applicants, are only applying for amnesty in respect of the incident at the Botshabelo Pep Store.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I confirm on behalf of the applicants that the applicants are only applying for the Pep Stores incident: Armed Robbery at Pep Stores, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: It should perhaps be placed on record, if anyone is going to glance at this record of this hearing, that they were charged before the Supreme Court with the robbery of the Botshabelo Pep Stores, a charge on which they were convicted and on the counts of murder were found NOT GUILTY.
Are you now calling the first applicant?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. I'm calling the first applicant, Abel Oupa Lerato Khotle.
ABEL OUPA LERATO KHOTLE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: And we have been told you are Lerato Abel Khotle, is that correct?
MR KHOTLE: Yes.
EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mr Khotle, the affidavit in front of you is also before the Committee, do you confirm that the affidavit was made by yourself and you abide by its contents?
MR KHOTLE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: I think we should place on record as we did in the previous hearing, that the applicant has been concerned in other matters before us, in both of the other two matters I think I'm correct in saying, and we have had evidence led as to the policies of the party that he belonged to and in his objectives. We will have regard to that evidence.
It does appear however that the policies of the party were somewhat different when this incident took place at the beginning of 1992. I'm now referring to the Judgment delivered at his trial where evidence was apparently led by the applicant that, or in a statement made, that it was not the policy of the APLA at that stage to use violence and injure people during the course of such operations.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, as the applicant has already confirmed and admitted that the affidavit is his, at this stage we are not intending to lead further evidence. We will leave it to the Committee to ask any questions and the applicant will be in a position to answer. Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO
MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I've got two questions.
Sir, can you explain to the Committee what happened to the money that was taken at the supermarket after the robbery?
MR KHOTLE: After we left we went inside together with comrade Prof inside that Pep Store. We instructed those people who were inside to lie down. The person who had the key came and opened the safe. After that I took the brown case which contained money ...[intervention]
MR MALAN: Mr Khotle, sorry to interrupt you. The question only relates to the money that was taken. This is now after the incident, what happened to the money? In your affidavit you state that you handed the money bag, this is paragraph 9, containing the notes to comrade Prof. Do you know what happened to the money?
MR KHOTLE: I threw some money among those people who were trying to chase us. Another one is with the police.
MR MALAN: In your affidavit you state that you threw at them only the small safe, is that what you're referring to when you talk about some money?
MR KHOTLE: That is correct.
MR MALAN: The moneybag, I'm still referring to paragraph 9, did it at the time when you handed it to comrade Prof, did it contain all the money stolen except the coins?
MR KHOTLE: The moneybag which I gave to comrade Prof contained bank notes. That is the money which landed in the police's hands.
MR MALAN: Yes, this is the reason really for the question, if I understand it correctly, because it appears that some eight odd thousand rand was taken and that only four thousand something was returned. Now my question is, the notes in that bank bag, that moneybag, was that the only notes taken or was there another bag carried by someone else with some more notes?
MR KHOTLE: No, Sir, that is the only moneybag which is appears in my affidavit, That is the only money I know about which we took from the store, there was no other moneybag.
MR MALAN: Can you generally just inform us please, how would you have dealt with the money had you been able to get away with this robbery? What would you have done?
MR KHOTLE: That money would help our unit to continue with our work and other matters which we would be able to, like buying ammunition and guns. That money would be used on those things.
MR MALAN: Would you yourself have kept the money and bought the ammunition and guns or who would have kept the money?
MR KHOTLE: What usually happened is that comrade Prof was the one who was in charge within our unit or cell. At the end he would be the person who would come with the final decision about what to do with the money.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: You gave an explanation to the court didn't you?
MR KHOTLE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you said you didn't hand the money over to your commander.
MR KHOTLE: I do not understand what you've just said. What is your question? May you please clarify the question?
CHAIRPERSON: At page 39 of the record, line 14, the Judgment says
"The explanation which accused number 2 gave when he pleaded before the Magistrate, is that the money which was the subject of this robbery was not handed over to the commander"
MR KHOTLE: After this attack, after we left Pep Stores at the time we retreated, the police chased us. We were not successful to be free. I was the only one who was able to evade the police, the other one was shot, then Mosiuwa Khotle was arrested together with the moneybag which contained money. There was no money which I could have handed over to the commander.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, you've covered my question, thank you Sir.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP
MR MALAN: This is now confusing because in paragraph 9 you expressly under oath state that you took the money and handed the bag over to comrade Prof. Do you see that?
MR KHOTLE: Yes.
MR MALAN: Have you not just said that you did not, that you never had the money?
MR KHOTLE: I gave comrade Prof the moneybag whilst we were in the store, because Prof was already dead by then.
MR MALAN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO
WITNESS EXCUSED
